“That one can convince one’s opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.”
G.C. Lichtenberg (1742 – 1799), courtesy of 'Deogolwulf'

Saturday, 26 May 2018

"Another perspective", or, you should have gone to Specsavers!

The American Spectator, like its London counterpart, is never afraid to enjoy 'another perspective' which is the title of some of its articles which approach matters from a somewhat different direction. Thus it is today when Mr. F. H. Buckley pens an article headed "Fire Bolton", er, that's Mr. John Bolton, the National Security Advisor to President Trump and the man who keeps all the kiddie-winkies awake at night because it is his finger that hovers over Trump's finger as they keep stroking that 'yuuuuuuuuuge' red button!

Mr. Buckley takes a cool look at the 'clusterfuck' that is the relationship between 'Fat Boy Kim' and 'The Donald'. I was grateful to read it because it is a tangled subject quite beyond my powers of analysis. According to Mr. Buckley, 'Fat Boy Kim' has absolutely no intention of using his nukes against America for the very simple reason that he would be signing his own death warrant. So, you may well ask, why does the little Korean 'podger' insist on having them? Mr. Buckley maintains that what he is frightened of is idealistic American foreign policy which, over recent decades, seems unable to keep its nose out of other people's business.

So why does he need the nukes? Why, to protect himself from America idealism. His nukes are defensive. What he’s telling us is that he’ll attack us if we try to depose him.

As we did in Libya. It’s all about Libya. It’s always been about Libya.

Remember how the Obama administration greeted the “Arab Spring”? It brought down some American friends such as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, as well some deranged miscreants such as Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. It replaced them in Egypt with the Moslem Brotherhood and in Libya with the people who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Ah, Libya. It was supposed to give us a democratic Arab nation, one as firmly committed to human rights as any San Francisco Democrat. The then-Secretary of State was so gung-ho for it that the Washington Post called it “Hillary’s War.”

What it got us instead was blackest chaos. The death of our ambassador and the death of Gaddafi.

If there's one man in Washington absolutely gung-ho to, as it were, 'carry on up the Khyber', it is the militant Mr. Bolton.

Some conservatives have defended Bolton as the administration’s “bad cop.” We don’t need a bad cop, however. What is needed instead is realism, cynicism, and a recognition that both we and the Norks have a credibility problem. Bolton doesn’t help. He’s not dumb and he’s not especially sharp. He’s just a ventor cloaca.

And no, I didn't know what a "ventor cloaca" was, either. Look it up under Wiki and you will get the general idea!

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"His Rotundity" the NK dictator made the mistake of threatening to launch nuclear weapons at certain American interests. Our last administration would ignore this but not the new one. Kim has launched rockets over Japan which means he has fired on Japan. John Bolton simply fills the hand of four-Trump, James Mattis, Mike Pompeo and 'the 'stache'.

Well I certainly agree that the Obama administration made some diabolically awful calls on foreign policy (remind me, who was the genius secretary of state to whom Obama entrusted his foreign policy).
Ghadafi had abandoned nukes on the word of the previous administration. Abandoning him not only reduced Lybia to chaos, it also made US promises meaningless.
Abandoning Mubarak had a similar effect wrt Egypt- fortunately Sisi was able to retrieve the situation somewhat, but I doubt the Obama administration had much to do with that.
In Ukraine the Obama administration abandoned Bush's promise to leave Ukraine alone, and sought, alongside the EU, to incorporate that country into the EU, apparently unaware that Russia (not just Putin) would fight to keep Sevastopol.
It's going to take more than one President to restore US credibility, but the best the President can do is stand by his word.
There will need to be a successor who does likewise, but that is in the lap of the gods. I see no reason to believe that Mr Bolton will betray either his own word or that of the President. In the latter case I believe the President will employ his catch phrase.

Comment: "In watching North Korea for more than 40 years, we have never seen it turn around a reply this quickly on a matter of such great consequence."

"Kim Kye Gwan’s statement on 16 May was pivotal in the negative turn in Kim Jong Un’s détente initiative. He now has the job of damage limitation and repair."

"His statement of regret indicates that North Korea overreached. It might have been his advice about the US administration and negotiating maneuvers that backfired. At the least, he is the responsible official. Vice Minister Choe, who disparaged the US Vice President, is his protégé."

"As for the substance of the statement, North Korea is treating the cancellation as a postponement, which is consistent with the message in the US President’s letter.

First Vice Minister Kim also has swiftly returned to the conciliatory tone of early May. The statement is close to an apology and is an invitation for a “do-over.”"

"Kim Jong Un wants a meeting. We highlighted bold language because it means that this statement has the approval of Kim Jong Un. It also attests that Kim Jong Un has been involved in summit preparations. That raises questions about who directed the negative turn in North Korean public statements since 10 May."

"Kim wants, or maybe needs, the US summit meeting. His propaganda outlets and Foreign Ministry contrived to make it appear that he could walk away from a meeting, but obviously he cannot and does not intend to."

"If his end-state is a unified Korea, for example, he cannot achieve it without engaging the US in negotiations. His team almost destroyed any chance of making progress towards that end-state during this US administration."

"South Korea looked past the insults … South Korean President Moon minimized North Korean insults to his staff, advisors and cabinet last week. It is the North Korean style. Alternating episodes of insults and compliments are common in North Korean media exchanges with South Korea."

"Moon did not demand an apology, nor did he modify his outreach strategy. The North Koreans apparently expected the US to behave in the same fashion."

"… the US did not. The North Koreans grossly misjudged the US administration, which declined to act according to custom. The US neither took the high-road of looking past the insults nor did it react emotionally. The US message is that the North is not ready – mature enough? - to make deals in the big leagues."

"Now the North, in fact, is asking for talks, contradicting the hubris in Vice Foreign Minister Choe’s insulting statement on the 23d."

"Special comment: We reviewed some of the statements and commentaries in March after the South Korean envoys conveyed Kim Jong Un’s invitations to talks. Three days after the envoys returned from North Korea, on 9 March, one commentary reported that the US begged for dialogue with North Korea because it was intimidated by the North’s nuclear power."

"We commented at that time that the North Koreans had twisted the facts. That twist surfaced again on 23 May in Vice Foreign Minister Choe’s statement. It suggests there are disagreements among Kim’s advisors about the tactics to use in negotiations with this US administration."

"Whatever the case, we have seen North Korean public statements alternate between the soft-line and the hard-line. The North seems much more comfortable acting the bully. But they just got trumped."

China is the main problem as they are prepared to support N. Korea in perpetuity. China and North Korea will continue to slaughter their vulnerable population to keep the regimes in power. The USA can only wipe out N. Korean military assets where known without invading.